2012年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_US_Climate_Change_Policy_Efforts_8页_574kb

US Climate Change Policy Efforts Summary

Core Content

This document outlines the evolving US climate change policy landscape, focusing on the role of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the implications of federal and subnational regulatory efforts. It highlights the shift from stalled national legislative initiatives, such as cap and trade, to the EPA's regulatory framework as the primary mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The document also compares the potential effectiveness of these regulatory measures with the previously proposed comprehensive cap and trade legislation, particularly in the context of meeting international commitments like the Copenhagen Accord.

Main Viewpoints

• Clean Air Act as the Central Policy Tool: The CAA has taken over as the main vehicle for regulating GHG emissions in the US, following the failure of national legislative efforts. The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed the EPA's authority to regulate GHGs.

• Three Regulatory Tools: The EPA employs three key tools to reduce emissions:

  1. New vehicle fuel economy standards (effective from 2012), aiming for a combined fleet average of 35.5 MPG by 2016 and 54.5 MPG by 2025.
  2. New Source Review (NSR): Requires permits for new construction and major modifications, with a focus on technology-based control measures.
  3. Operating performance standards for existing stationary sources, which are expected to have the largest impact on GHG emissions.

• Emissions Reduction Potential: The document estimates that under the CAA, emissions reductions from existing facilities could reach 6% by 2020. Additional reductions, not captured in the table, could push this to 10%, comparable to the potential under a cap and trade system.

• Subnational Policy Influence: State and regional initiatives, such as the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and California’s cap and trade programme, are influencing federal policy. These programmes could offer a template for expanding state-level compliance flexibility and could complement federal regulations.

• Copenhagen Commitments: The US committed to a 17% reduction in emissions by 2020 from 2005 levels. However, the Clean Air Act's regulatory approach may not fully meet this target without the inclusion of international offsets, which are not part of the CAA framework. The absence of such mechanisms could hinder the US ability to meet its financing obligations for international climate investments.

• Cost and Flexibility: The document argues that a flexible regulatory approach is more cost-effective than an inflexible one. It estimates that a flexible standard could achieve emissions reductions at one-third the cost of an inflexible standard. Flexibility in fuel substitution and operational improvements is seen as a key factor in achieving greater efficiency and lower costs.

• Challenges of Regulatory Approach: While the regulatory approach can yield significant short-term reductions, it is less efficient in the long term compared to a market-based price on carbon. The latter would provide a clearer price signal for technological innovation and economic behavior change.

Key Information

• Emissions Sources: Existing stationary sources, particularly coal-fired power plants and petroleum refineries, are the largest contributors to US GHG emissions.

• Emissions Reductions by Sector:

  • Iron and steel: 19% potential reduction in sector emissions (0.19% of US total).
  • Pulp and paper: 14% potential reduction (0.2–0.4% of US total).
  • Cement plants: 1–10% potential reduction (0.02–0.2% of US total).
  • Boilers (industrial, commercial, institutional): 1–10% potential reduction (0.2–2% of US total).
  • Petroleum refineries: 1–10% potential reduction (0.03–0.3% of US total).
  • Boilers (electric power): 5–9% potential reduction (1.7–3.1% of US total).
  • Coal-fired efficiency gains: 2–5% potential reduction (0.56–1.4% of US total).

• Costs of Reductions: The average gross cost of cost-effective measures ranges from $0.40–$63.91 per tonne of CO2e, depending on the sector and process. These costs are based on engineering perspectives and do not include broader economic considerations.

• Comparison with Cap and Trade: The Clean Air Act's regulatory approach could achieve similar emissions reductions as cap and trade legislation by 2020, but lacks the market-driven incentives and financing mechanisms of cap and trade.

• Environmental Federalism: The CAA’s structure places responsibility for implementation at the state level, allowing for localized strategies. This could lead to varied approaches and may enhance the effectiveness of subnational initiatives.

Conclusion

The regulatory framework under the Clean Air Act offers a viable path for achieving significant GHG reductions in the US by 2020, comparable to the potential of comprehensive cap and trade legislation. However, the absence of a carbon price and the limitations of the CAA in capturing international offsets and financing mechanisms pose challenges for long-term and international climate commitments. The document concludes that while the regulatory approach is effective in the short term, it may not be as efficient or comprehensive as a legislative cap and trade system.